{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"smithery_akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server","slug":"akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server","name":"secure-mcp-server","type":"mcp","url":"https://github.com/akilat-spec/secure-mcp-server","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server","categories":["mcp-servers"],"tags":["mcp","model-context-protocol","smithery:akilat-spec/secure-mcp-server"],"pricing":{"model":"open_source","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"smithery_akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server__cap_0","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.mcp.server.initialization.with.security.first.configuration","name":"mcp server initialization with security-first configuration","description":"Bootstraps an MCP server instance with built-in security constraints and validation layers before exposing any tools or resources. The server enforces authentication, authorization, and input validation at the protocol level rather than delegating to individual tool handlers, using a declarative configuration model to define allowed operations and access patterns.","intents":["Set up an MCP server that enforces security policies by default without requiring per-tool implementation","Configure role-based access control for different client types connecting to the MCP server","Establish secure communication channels with automatic credential validation before tool execution"],"best_for":["Teams deploying MCP servers in multi-tenant or production environments","Developers building AI agents that need to expose internal tools with strict access controls","Organizations requiring compliance-driven tool exposure with audit trails"],"limitations":["Security policies are static at server startup — runtime policy changes require server restart","No built-in support for dynamic credential rotation without manual intervention","Overhead of security validation adds latency to every tool invocation (typically 10-50ms per request)"],"requires":["MCP protocol implementation (Python or Node.js SDK)","Configuration file or environment variables for security policies","Authentication provider (API keys, OAuth tokens, or mutual TLS certificates)"],"input_types":["JSON configuration objects","Environment variables","Security policy definitions (YAML or JSON)"],"output_types":["MCP server instance","Security validation results","Access control decision logs"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server__cap_1","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.tool.exposure.with.capability.based.access.control","name":"tool exposure with capability-based access control","description":"Registers tools and resources with the MCP server while enforcing fine-grained capability-based access control that determines which clients can invoke which tools based on their assigned roles or permissions. Each tool is wrapped with a security middleware that validates the caller's capabilities against a capability matrix before execution, preventing unauthorized tool invocation at the protocol level.","intents":["Expose a set of internal tools to AI agents while restricting certain sensitive operations to authorized clients only","Define which tools are available to different classes of users or agents without modifying tool implementations","Prevent privilege escalation by ensuring tools cannot be called by clients lacking required capabilities"],"best_for":["Multi-tenant AI applications where different users have different tool access levels","Enterprise deployments exposing internal APIs through MCP with role-based restrictions","AI agent frameworks that need to enforce tool access policies across multiple agents"],"limitations":["Capability matrix must be pre-defined at server startup — no runtime capability grants","No support for time-limited or context-dependent capability grants (e.g., 'allow this tool for 1 hour')","Capability checking adds per-invocation overhead; complex capability matrices may impact latency"],"requires":["Tool definitions compatible with MCP protocol","Capability matrix or role definitions (JSON/YAML format)","Client authentication mechanism to establish identity before capability checking"],"input_types":["Tool definitions (schema, parameters, return types)","Capability/role mappings","Client identity tokens or credentials"],"output_types":["Tool registry with access control metadata","Access decision logs","Tool invocation results (if authorized) or access denied errors"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server__cap_2","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.request.validation.and.input.sanitization.middleware","name":"request validation and input sanitization middleware","description":"Intercepts all incoming MCP requests and validates them against defined schemas before passing them to tool handlers, including type checking, format validation, and sanitization of potentially malicious input patterns. The middleware uses JSON Schema or similar declarative validators to ensure requests conform to expected structures, preventing injection attacks and malformed data from reaching tool implementations.","intents":["Prevent malformed or malicious requests from reaching tool implementations","Validate that incoming tool parameters match expected types and formats before execution","Sanitize user-provided input to remove or escape potentially dangerous patterns (SQL injection, command injection, etc.)"],"best_for":["MCP servers exposing tools that interact with databases, file systems, or external APIs","Applications requiring strict input validation for compliance or security audits","Teams building AI agents that need to ensure tool inputs are safe before execution"],"limitations":["Validation rules must be defined upfront for each tool — no automatic inference from tool signatures","Complex validation logic (e.g., cross-field dependencies) requires custom validators beyond schema definitions","Sanitization may alter legitimate input; overly aggressive sanitization can break valid use cases"],"requires":["JSON Schema definitions or equivalent validation framework","Tool parameter specifications with type and format constraints","Middleware integration point in the MCP server request pipeline"],"input_types":["MCP request objects","Tool parameter values (strings, numbers, objects, arrays)","Validation schema definitions"],"output_types":["Validated and sanitized request objects","Validation error messages with specific failure reasons","Audit logs of validation decisions"],"categories":["safety-moderation","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server__cap_3","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.authentication.and.credential.management.for.mcp.clients","name":"authentication and credential management for mcp clients","description":"Manages client authentication for MCP connections using pluggable authentication providers (API keys, OAuth tokens, mutual TLS, etc.) and maintains a credential store that validates incoming client credentials before allowing tool access. The system supports multiple authentication methods simultaneously and can revoke credentials without server restart, using a credential validation pipeline that checks authentication status before processing any MCP request.","intents":["Authenticate MCP clients using API keys, tokens, or certificates before allowing tool access","Support multiple authentication methods (API keys, OAuth, mTLS) for different client types","Revoke or rotate client credentials without requiring server restart"],"best_for":["Production MCP servers serving multiple clients with different authentication requirements","Organizations needing to audit which clients accessed which tools","Teams requiring credential rotation and revocation capabilities"],"limitations":["Credential revocation requires external state store — no built-in persistence layer","No built-in support for credential expiration or automatic rotation","Authentication overhead adds latency to every request (typically 5-20ms per validation)"],"requires":["Authentication provider implementation (API key validator, OAuth token verifier, etc.)","Credential storage mechanism (in-memory, database, or external service)","Client identity mechanism (headers, certificates, or request metadata)"],"input_types":["Client credentials (API keys, tokens, certificates)","Authentication provider configuration","Credential revocation requests"],"output_types":["Authentication success/failure decisions","Client identity tokens or session objects","Authentication audit logs"],"categories":["safety-moderation","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server__cap_4","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.audit.logging.and.security.event.tracking","name":"audit logging and security event tracking","description":"Records all security-relevant events (authentication attempts, authorization decisions, tool invocations, validation failures) to an audit log with structured metadata including timestamp, client identity, action, result, and context. The logging system supports multiple output backends (files, databases, external logging services) and can be configured to alert on suspicious patterns or policy violations, providing a complete audit trail for compliance and forensic analysis.","intents":["Track which clients accessed which tools and when for compliance and forensic analysis","Detect suspicious patterns in tool access (e.g., repeated failed authentication attempts)","Generate audit reports showing tool usage by client, time, and outcome"],"best_for":["Regulated industries (finance, healthcare, government) requiring comprehensive audit trails","Organizations conducting security investigations or incident response","Teams implementing zero-trust security models that require detailed access logs"],"limitations":["Audit logging adds per-request overhead (typically 5-15ms depending on backend)","High-volume tool invocations may overwhelm logging backends without proper buffering","Sensitive data in logs (credentials, user input) requires careful handling to avoid information leakage"],"requires":["Logging backend (file system, database, or external service like Datadog/Splunk)","Structured logging format (JSON or similar)","Log retention policy and storage capacity"],"input_types":["Security events (authentication, authorization, tool invocation, validation)","Event metadata (timestamp, client identity, action, result)","Logging configuration (backend, format, retention)"],"output_types":["Structured audit logs","Security event alerts","Audit reports and compliance documentation"],"categories":["safety-moderation","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server__cap_5","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.rate.limiting.and.abuse.prevention.for.tool.invocations","name":"rate limiting and abuse prevention for tool invocations","description":"Enforces rate limits on tool invocations per client, per tool, or globally to prevent abuse and resource exhaustion. The system uses token bucket or sliding window algorithms to track invocation rates and can enforce different limits for different clients based on their tier or role. Rate limit violations trigger configurable actions (request rejection, throttling, alerting) and are logged for security analysis.","intents":["Prevent a single client from overwhelming the MCP server with excessive tool invocations","Enforce different rate limits for different client tiers (free vs premium users)","Detect and respond to potential abuse or denial-of-service attacks"],"best_for":["Public-facing MCP servers serving multiple clients with varying resource consumption","SaaS platforms offering MCP access with tiered pricing based on usage","Systems requiring protection against resource exhaustion attacks"],"limitations":["Rate limit state must be shared across server instances — requires distributed state store for horizontal scaling","Burst traffic may be incorrectly flagged as abuse if limits are too strict","Rate limit enforcement adds per-request overhead (typically 2-10ms depending on algorithm)"],"requires":["Rate limiting algorithm implementation (token bucket, sliding window, etc.)","Distributed state store for tracking rate limit counters (Redis, Memcached, or similar)","Client identification mechanism to associate invocations with specific clients"],"input_types":["Tool invocation requests","Client identity","Rate limit configuration (limits per client, per tool, per time window)"],"output_types":["Rate limit decision (allow/reject/throttle)","Rate limit headers (remaining quota, reset time)","Rate limit violation logs and alerts"],"categories":["safety-moderation","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server__cap_6","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.resource.isolation.and.sandboxing.for.tool.execution","name":"resource isolation and sandboxing for tool execution","description":"Executes tools in isolated environments with restricted resource access (CPU, memory, file system, network) to prevent a misbehaving or compromised tool from affecting the MCP server or other tools. The system uses containerization, process isolation, or language-level sandboxing depending on the tool implementation, with configurable resource quotas and timeout enforcement to prevent resource exhaustion.","intents":["Execute untrusted or third-party tools without risking server stability or security","Prevent a tool from consuming excessive resources (CPU, memory) and impacting other tools","Isolate file system and network access to prevent tools from accessing sensitive resources"],"best_for":["MCP servers executing user-provided or third-party tools","Multi-tenant systems where tools from different tenants must be isolated","High-security environments requiring strong isolation guarantees"],"limitations":["Sandboxing adds significant overhead (container startup time, resource overhead) — typically 100-500ms per invocation","Complex inter-process communication required to pass data to/from sandboxed tools","Sandboxing mechanisms vary by platform (containers on Linux, different approaches on Windows/macOS)"],"requires":["Containerization platform (Docker) or process isolation mechanism","Resource quota configuration (CPU, memory, disk, network limits)","Tool packaging compatible with sandboxing approach"],"input_types":["Tool definitions with resource requirements","Tool invocation requests","Resource quota specifications"],"output_types":["Tool execution results","Resource usage metrics","Sandbox violation alerts"],"categories":["safety-moderation","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"smithery_akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server__cap_7","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.policy.enforcement.and.compliance.validation","name":"policy enforcement and compliance validation","description":"Enforces organizational security policies and compliance requirements (e.g., data residency, encryption, audit requirements) by validating tool invocations against policy rules before execution. The system uses a policy engine that evaluates conditions (client location, data classification, tool type) and either allows, denies, or requires additional validation (e.g., multi-factor approval) for tool invocations, with detailed logging of policy decisions for compliance reporting.","intents":["Enforce organizational security policies (e.g., 'sensitive tools require multi-factor approval')","Ensure tool invocations comply with regulatory requirements (GDPR, HIPAA, SOC2)","Prevent tools from being used in ways that violate organizational policies"],"best_for":["Regulated organizations (finance, healthcare, government) with strict compliance requirements","Enterprises with complex security policies and multiple stakeholders","Teams implementing zero-trust security models with policy-driven access control"],"limitations":["Policy evaluation adds per-request latency (typically 10-50ms depending on policy complexity)","Complex policies may be difficult to maintain and debug","Policy changes require careful testing to avoid unintended side effects"],"requires":["Policy definition language or rules engine","Policy evaluation engine implementation","Compliance requirement specifications"],"input_types":["Tool invocation requests","Client context (location, role, authentication method)","Policy rules and compliance requirements"],"output_types":["Policy decision (allow/deny/require-approval)","Compliance validation results","Policy decision logs for audit trails"],"categories":["safety-moderation","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":28,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["MCP protocol implementation (Python or Node.js SDK)","Configuration file or environment variables for security policies","Authentication provider (API keys, OAuth tokens, or mutual TLS certificates)","Tool definitions compatible with MCP protocol","Capability matrix or role definitions (JSON/YAML format)","Client authentication mechanism to establish identity before capability checking","JSON Schema definitions or equivalent validation framework","Tool parameter specifications with type and format constraints","Middleware integration point in the MCP server request pipeline","Authentication provider implementation (API key validator, OAuth token verifier, etc.)"],"failure_modes":["Security policies are static at server startup — runtime policy changes require server restart","No built-in support for dynamic credential rotation without manual intervention","Overhead of security validation adds latency to every tool invocation (typically 10-50ms per request)","Capability matrix must be pre-defined at server startup — no runtime capability grants","No support for time-limited or context-dependent capability grants (e.g., 'allow this tool for 1 hour')","Capability checking adds per-invocation overhead; complex capability matrices may impact latency","Validation rules must be defined upfront for each tool — no automatic inference from tool signatures","Complex validation logic (e.g., cross-field dependencies) requires custom validators beyond schema definitions","Sanitization may alter legitimate input; overly aggressive sanitization can break valid use cases","Credential revocation requires external state store — no built-in persistence layer","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.26,"ecosystem":0.48999999999999994,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.6,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.15,"match_graph":0.23,"freshness":0.12}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:25.635Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T15:19:18.601Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server"}},"signature":"yZccqng7/r+F3LmluSDY6PeRp+L7PCQlYVk7CXJwhB+6GUhU5D11qmdcxIp93Up5tKlSfD5BqKVIkbGZv/1GDQ==","signedAt":"2026-06-20T15:18:02.197Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=akilat-spec-secure-mcp-server","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}